The shocking news of Princess Diana's death, along with her companion and driver, has caused deep feelings regarding who is to blame. The accident, allegedly contributed to by the pursuit of intrusive photographers, has brought with it claims for tighter controls on the media for invasion of privacy. But should we ultimately blame the media?
The simple fact is that free lance photographers are motivated by the desire for profit. The more they can get for that elusive photograph, the greater the lengths they will go to. The bigger the prize, the larger the field of competitors. But what accounts for the size of the prize?
Exclusive, titillating pictures sell magazines and newspapers and increase television ratings. In the dog-eat-dog world of publishing, those with exclusives beat out those without. In one view, this is because the customer is apparently is more concerned with seeing these pictures than with how they were obtained. Perhaps the blame should lie not with the media but with their customers.
But, this view is too simplistic. A customer might desire news about the Royal Family and also be concerned about excessive invasion of privacy. In principle, there need be no conflict between the two. But when all of the stories they want on this subject potentially carry a similar taint, consumers face the dilemma of limited choice.
Why can't consumers choose to only to purchase media with less invasive stories about celebrities? Why is the market for invasive-free journalism thin? Economists have a powerful explanation for this kind of phenomenon: an explanation based on incomplete information. Consider the difficulty you might face as a consumer trying to determine whether a particular picture was obtained in an acceptable fashion. Remember, most pictures of celebrities are of this type. After all, they like to be photographed, at least most of the time. But there is always some chance that the pictures were taken using unacceptable, intrusive methods. A consumer trying to work out whether to purchase one magazine or another has no means of differentiating the product. After all, tabloids do not go to lengths to advertise the, possibly illegal and invasive, means used to get a shot. Better to simply attribute that to an independent photographer.
This doubt means that some consumers will choose not to purchase a magazine at all rather than risk supporting unacceptable behaviour. But enough decide to purchase the magazine regardless and this fuels the demand for ill-gotten photos and stories.
But this analysis suggests that there is a market opportunity for some publishers. To see this, recall what happened when it was brought to consumer's attention that some of the tuna they were eating was caught using drift nets. Graphic footage demonstrated that these nets were particularly harmful to dolphins. As a result there was a boycott campaign brought against all tuna producers who could not guarantee their product was dolphin free. And, not surprisingly, we see today that many brands are now guaranteed along these lines.
A similar opportunity is surely available to tabloid publishers and the rest of the media, particularly after the events of this week. Through the use of a third party agency, some parts of the media could become certified on the basis of the methods they use to obtain their content. A magazine, for instance, could provide a guarantee to its readers that all its photographs were obtained without any intrusive means or invasions of privacy. They would not use free lance pictures that they could not rely upon. A third party agency would verify these claims and impose heavy penalties for violations. The result would be similar to dolphin-free tuna: invasive-free media.
If consumers are really concerned about where their information comes from, they will pay a premium for media that is invasive-free. Advertisers will also find it in their interest to support invasive-free media. Companies will want their products associated with 'clean' journalism.
To be true, there will always be some market for information obtained in invasive ways. The point is that the existence of a certified media will allow some consumers to read about celebrities without concern for the moral implications. If this group is large enough, the intense demand for intrusive photographs and stories will be reduced. This, in turn, will lower the returns to becoming one of the paparazzi and, hopefully, eliminate the more tragic consequences of their actions.
Joshua Gans is an associate professor in economics at Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne. Stephen King is a senior researcher in economics at the Australian National University.
This article appeared in the Australian
Financial Review on Monday 8th September, 1997, p.16.